AVAILABLE from Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Industry

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 399 443 CE 072 571

TITLE A Report of the Child Labor Task Force. INSTITUTION Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Industry, Portland. PUB DATE Nov 91 NOTE 75p. AVAILABLE FROM Technical Assistance, Bureau of Labor and Industries, P.O. Box 800, Portland, OR 97207-0800 ($18 each prepaid). PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Adolescents; Career Education; Education Work Relationship; Part Time Employment; Secondary Education; *Student Employment; Wages; Work Environment; *Work Experience; *Youth Employment

ABSTRACT A task force studied youth work and its impact on the health, education, and safety of 16- and 17-year-olds. The study covered such issues as the following: effects of work on school performance, work's physical and psychological effects on young people, the effects work can have on young people's preparation for lifelong work, and what steps can be taken to emphasize the positive benefits enjoyed by working young people while limiting the drawbacks. Four methods were used to gather information: a review of major research and studies, public hearings throughout Oregon, a survey of employers, and a survey of 16- and 17-year-olds. Findings indicated that the number of 16- and 17-year-olds who work had increased in recent years and many businesses who employed minors relied heavily on them. Student jobs were often low-paying, unfulfilling, and offered little in the way of educational value or preparation for adult work. A number of positive benefits were enjoyed by young people who worked, such as enhanced self-esteem, an early appreciation for the work ethic, and a degree of financial freedom. However, the study also concluded that these benefits could be short lived if not linked to long-term career and education goals. Youth work was not inherently good or bad. Many young people could effectively balance school and work, whereas others could not. A school-to-work connection and transition was necessary. (Appendixes contain a 34-item bibliography and questionnaire.) (YLB)

***************A,.4********A***************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** P5

REPORT OF HE MILD LABOR TA 'S K

NOVEMBERFORCE 1991

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUysATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC) Thm document has been reproduced as wowed from the person or organization originating Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.

Points of view Or opmoonS stated in this docu- TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ment do not necessarily representofficial INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) OERI OoSitiOn or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE-- BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 2 ACHILD REPORT OF THE TASKLABOR NOVEMBERFORCE 1991

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Maly Wendy Roberts, Commissioner

This report was prepared by the Bureau of Labor and Industries' Child Labor Task Force appointed by Commissioner Mary Wendy Roberts.

Portions of this report may be reproduced without permission, provided that acknowledgement is given as shown above.

An order form for this report and other publications of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is located on the final page of this report.

3 The Bureau of Labor and Industries The mission of the Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Industries is to advance the development of a highly skilled workforce in Oregon through partnerships with government, labor, business and education; to protect individual rights to equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accommodations and vocational, professional and trade schools; to enforce state laws relating to wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment; to regulate certain industries to ensure quality and professional services; and to advocate policies that reconcile the demands of the workplace with the needs of the family.

Bureau of Labor and Industries 1400 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 P.O. Box 800 Portland Oregon 97207-0800 503/229-5737 FAX: 503/229-6577

4 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Mike Kaiel, Chair Arlynn Tsugawa Deputy Commissioner School Psychologist 0 Bureau of Labor and Industries Beaverton School District Portland Beaverton

Judith Bauman Diane Turner State Representative Director District 13 Teen Insights Program Portland Portland

Paul Benninghoff Doug Wacker Director of Instruction Operations Manager, Northwest Region Portland Public Schools McDonald's Corporation Technical Education Department Portland Portland James Whitty Bill Cross Director Executive Vice-President and CEO Oregon Retail Council Oregon Restaurant Association Salem Wilsonville Jane Wilcox Joan Dukes Teacher State Senator Pendleton High School District 1 Pendleton Astoria Helen Williams Jan Huskey Director of Associate Relations Chairperson Meier and Frank Albany School District Board Portland Albany Pat Wolter Gail Jones President Counselor Oregon Congress of Parents and Teachers Grant High School Portland Portland

Ken MacKillop President, Local 555 Task Force Technical Advisor: Food and Commercial Workers Union Gary Sackley Oregon State Wage and Hour Commission Project Manager Bureau of Labor and Industries Steve McDermott Teacher, Counselor Staff: Triangle Lake High School Don Alcoke Blachley Bonnie Baum Joan Stevens-Schwenger Norm Monroe Staff Assistant to the Chair Multnomah County Community Action Program Portland P. O. Box 800 MARY WENDY ROBERTS PORTLAND, OREGON 97207-0600 COMMISSIONER 3865 WOLVERINE AVE. NE, E- I SALEM, OREGON 97310

BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

November 1991

Dear Task Force Members, First let me thank you for your investment in the lives of our children. Yourtime, exper- tise, and dedication were well spent Last year I turned to you for advice on a complex issue of importance toall Oregonians: youth work. How does work affect our youthdoes it enhance theireducation or hinder it? Does a part-time job prepare our children to be productivemembers of an adult workforce?

I was, and still am, greatly concerned about the growing trendof students working after school. The slow growth of the labor force has opened up opportunitiesfor younger children to work. Fourteen and 15 year-olds are now recruited for jobsthat had been filled by 18 year-olds. We have all observed that the youth work experience can be positive,but tedious work without training for a future career can sap a child's energy and erode studyand rest times. If the school is not preparing these children for better careers,they might well opt for the short-term financial rewards of dead-end jobs. As you discovered in your research, the majority of our children arealready in the workforce. And it may well be true that in many cases we must admit that those inschool are working, and those who are working, are learning.

Your work points out the advantages as well as the pitfalls of youthwork. Your creative approach to maximizing the positives while minimizing the negatives isrefreshing, exciting and fundamentally Oregonian. I wholeheartedly support your conclusions and will immediatelybegin to work with business, education and parents to implement your recommendations.

Sincerely,

Mary Wendy Roberts Commissioner Bureau of Labor and Industries BUREAU November 1991 OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES Dear Commissioner Roberts,

On behalf of the Child Labor Task Force, I am pleased to submit our report on youth work, its impact on the health, education and safety of 16- and 17-year olds. Task force members actively participated in the study and contributed not only their valuable time, but also many of the resources, ideas and findings contained in the report. MARY WENDY ROBERTS COMMISSIONER The report and the survey provide all of us with a better understanding of how many young people are working, why they work and how they view it, the impact PORTLAND of work on school performance and activities and how much employers rely on PO Box 800 young people to sustain their businesses. This data should be of great assistance to Portland, OR 97207-0800 you and others interested in the issues of minors in the workforce. (503) 229-5735 FAX (503) 229-6372

The task force members agreed that for some young people, work and school are SALEM not in conflict. In fact, work may keep some youngsters from leaving school. But 3865 Wolverine St. NE; E-1 Salem, OR 97310 for many, work sidetracts them from getting the education necessary to succeed in (503) 373-1447 the adult workforce. The work activities of these young people need to be moni- FAX (503) 373-7636 tored and possibly curtailed. In addition, the work experiences of all young people EUGENE need to be enriched and connected to their education. 165 E 7th Street Suite 220 The task force is recommending that the schools, businesses and parents work with Eugene, OR 97401 the bureau to develop and establish a work authorization system. It also recom- (503) 686-7623 FAX (503) 68617980 mends that employers voluntarily adopt guidelines restricting the number and lateness of the work hours of 16- and 17-year-olds. In addition, the task force calls MEDFORD 700 E Main on education to expand its monitored work experience programs to ensure that Medford, OR 97504 youth work is connected to education. (503) 776-6197 FAX (503)776-6284 The task force strongly supports your belief that education must be a priority for BEND young people, and stands ready with you to ensure that work enhances, not 1250 NE 3rd hampers, a young person's educational experience. Suite B105 Bend, OR 97701 (503) 388-6330 Sincerely, FAX (503) 388-6273

COOS BAY 320 Central Ave. /ft ircu:L.e Suite 510 Coos Bay, OR 97420 (503) 269-4575 Mike Kaiel FAX (503) 267-3194 Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Labor and Industries PENDLETON 700 SE Emigrant Suite 240 Pendleton, OR 97801 (503) 276-7884 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FAX (503) 276-2950 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Child Labor Task Force Members

Letter From Commissioner Roberts

Transmittal Letter From the Task Force

Page

Executive Summary 1 Chapter I: Introduction 5 Current Laws 5 Estimate of Minors in the Workforce 6 Key Issues 7 Organization of the Study 8

Chapter II:Background Research 9 New Hampshire Study 9 New York State Study 10 Youth and Work: What We Know, What We Don't Know, What We Need to Know 11 National Panel on Work and America's Youth: Regional Forum 12 When Teenagers Work 13 America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! 13

Chapter III:Public Hearings 15 Employers 15 Educators and Parents 16 Students 16

Chapter IV:Employer Survey 17 Employing Minors 18 Minors Compared to Adult Workers 19 Conflicts Between School and Work 20 Improving and Regulating the School and Work Situation 21 What If 16- and 17-Year Olds Were Not Allowed to Work? 22

Chapter V:Student Survey 23 Students in the Workforce 24 Finding Employment 28 Time Left For Homework? 31 Parental Involvement 32 Buying Power 32 Reflections on Their Futures 34 The Effects of Working on Grades 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page Chapter VI: Summary of Issues 37 How Employers View Youth Work 37 How Educators View Youth Work 38 How Parents View Youth Work 39 What Motivates Young People to Work 40 Does Working Adversely Affect Students' Academic Performance? 40 Likely Economic Consequences of Restricting the Hours of 16- and 17-Year-Olds? 41 Assessing the Effects of Working on the Health and Well-Being of 16- and 17-Year-Olds 42 How Can Schools Limit the Negative Effects (if found) of 16- and 17-Year-Olds Working? 44

Chapter VII: Conclusions and Recommendations 45 Conclusions 45 Task Force Discussion 46 Recommendations 47 Summary 50

Appendix A Bibliography 51 Appendix B Listing of Hearings Witnesses 55 Appendix C Survey of Students (conducted by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries) 59

Order Form 70 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report details the findings and recommendations of a 17-person task force's study of the employment of minors. The study covers such issues as the effects of work on school performance, work's physical and psychological effects on young people, the effects work can have on young people's preparation for lifelong work and what steps can be taken to emphasize the positive benefits enjoyed by working young people while limiting the drawbacks.

The study uses four methods to gather information: a review of major research and studies, public hearings throughout the state, a survey of employers and a survey of 16- and 17-year- olds.

The task force finds that the number of 16- and 17-year-olds who work has increased in recent years, and that many businesses who employ minors rely heavily on such workers. Many employers say they would be adversely affected if more stringent laws regulating the employment of young workers were implemented. Research conducted for the task force also reveals that student jobs are often low-paying, unfulfilling and offer little in the way of educational value or preparation for adult work.

The task force conclusions identify a number of positive benefits enjoyed by young people who work, such as enhanced self-esteem and an early appreciation for the work ethic and a degree of financial freedom which many of their families are unable to offer. However, the task force also concludes that these benefits can be short-lived if notinked to long-term career and education goals.

CONCLUSIONS Youth work is not inherently good or bad.

Getting an education is a young person's primary job. Society has a strong interest in supporting that process.

Young people react differently to the demands of school and work. Many young people effectively balance them. Some find the demands of a 25-hour work week and school too much to handle. Work provides a certain amount of economic freedom and a sense of independence and also leads to economic obligations such as regular car payments. Work can contribute to a greater sense of worth, but it can also be boring and keep young people from involvement in more enriching activities.

10 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 1 Youth work is widely accepted and seen as proof of youth industriousness and responsibility in our culture. It is also on the rise. More young people are working more hours and are starting work at a younger age. Many employers use young workers to supplement their adult workforce and a growing number of employers rely primarily on a steady supply of youth to fuel their businesses.

Our approach to youth work has serious implications for young people and the future economic well-being of the nation. An increasingly complex and competitive global economy will condemn any nation unable to supply enough educated and skilled workers to an erosion of its standard of living. That is the outcome predicted for this country unless we plan now for our workforce of the future. Most plans call for some kind of demonstra- tion and certification of basic competency plus specific high level skills training. But this approach runs counter to deeply ingrained American attitudes about education and free markets, it also contradicts most current thinking about schooling and youth work as well;

Whatever its positive attributes, youth work is unfortunately not part of an overall educational approach in which school and work complement each other and educators and employers take joint responsibility for the educational advances of young people.

The school-to-work transition cannot be left to chance. The task force believes youth work, properly structured and monitored, can provide real benefits to young people.

RECOMMENDATIONS The task force's recommendations focus on increasing cooperation and coordination among parents, students, employers, schools and the bureau. In this spirit, the task force recommends that a work authorization system be considered that would enable schools and parents to restrict a minor's right to work during the school year. Such a system should be instituted alongside voluntary employer guidelines that counteract potential work-related problems while encouraging academic performance.

In addition, the task force called upon employers to broaden the work experience of their young employees. Such programs, which expose young workers to skills and responsibilities that apply to a lifelong career, could work effectively through expanded cooperative work experience programs in the schools.

Specifically, the task force recommends that:

The commissioner, in cooperation with the Wage and Hour Commission, should consider a work authorization system that would enable schools and parents to restrict or deny the right of minors to work during the school year. Employers and employer associations should voluntarily adopt guidelines for youth employment which are aimed at improving youth work.

CHILD LABOR TASK FOR C E 2 Employers should consider programs which enrich the youth work experience. School districts should expand cooperative work experience programs. Schools should work with the Bureau of Labor and Industries to develop courses on student workers' rights and responsibilities. Schools should work with local chambers of commerce and employer associations to develop models of good employer-parent-school cooperation linking work and education.

Insummary, the task force believes that a young person's primary focus should be education. Society should take whatever steps are necessary to support and further this essential goal.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Labor and Industries is responsible for enforcing the state's child labor laws. The bureau also oversees the development and administration of apprenticeship and training programs which prepare workers for a wide range of high skill careers. As head of the bureau since 1979, Commissioner Mary Wendy Roberts has long been concerned with two related issues: adequate on-the-job protection for working minors and the lack of a school-to-work transition for the majority of high school graduates who do not continue their education at a four-year college.

Larger numbers of young people under the age of 18 are working and working more hours. Yet, according to employer groups and others, these same young people are ill-prepared for the adult world of work which requires the possession of basic academic skills and a sound work ethic. Increasingly, adult jobs also require problem-solving capabilities, communication skills, higher-order technical skills and the ability to work in teams.

In September, 1990 Commissioner Roberts appointed a task force of 17 persons representing business, education, parents, social service agencies and the legislature to "inquire into and make findings regarding general conditions of the employment of minors, their hours and working conditions, the impact of employment of minors on their educational achievement and its impact on their health and welfare." As the task force investigated these questions, it also examined the broader question of the transition from school-to-work.

CURRENT LAWS Oregon's child labor laws and rules currently allow 16- and 17-year-olds to be employed in any non-hazardous occupation up to 44 hours per week. With very few exceptions, the laws and rules do not address the number of hours per day, number of days per week, or how early or how late in the evening 16- and 17-year-olds can work. This contrasts with the restrictions on 14- and 15-year-olds who may not work more than 18 hours per week during the school year or beyond 7 p.m. on school nights.

Student workers ages 14 through 17 must first obtain a work permit issued by the Bureau of Labor and Industries before they can legally work in Oregon. The law also requires employers of minors to file employment certificates with the bureau describing the age, hours and job duties of every minor hired.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 5 R E P CD

The rules governing the employment of minors are established by the Wage and Hour Com- mission, a three-member body appointed by the Governor. These rules and the statutes are enforced by the Wage and Hour Division, under the direction of Commissioner Roberts.

ESTIMATE OF MINORS IN THE WORKFORCE The bureau issued 37,419 work permits during fiscal year 1990-91. The number of work permits issued has climbed steadily during the past few years as the following graph indicates. The number of permits issued last year represents an increase of 51 percent over the 1982-83 fiscal year.

Work Permits Issued Annually TO MINORS AGE 14-17

38,910 40,000 37,419 36,642 34,209 35,000 32,251 32,672 30,134 30,000 27,833 24,785 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

CO 00 O O 9)

Since a certain percentage of these are duplicates of lost permits already issued and since the permit is good from ages 14 to 18, it is estimated that at any given time about 100,000 minors are authorized to work in Oregon. This corresponds with the Oregon Department of Education's most recent figures for public high school enrollment of 129,000 students in grades 9 through 12.

Because a minor is not required to have a job to get a work permit, the number of work permits does not accurately represent the number of minors actually employed at any given time. From the percentages for 16- and 17-year-old employment from our survey of students,

14 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 6 R E P CD R T

a conservative estimate of the number of Oregon minors aged 14 through 17 employed while school is in session is about 50,000 to 60,000.

KEY ISSUES Early in its proceedings the task force identified a number of "key issues" that determined the shape and scope of its inquiry:

What personal, family, and social factors motivate minors to work?

Is there a clear connection between working hours and academic performance?

What can schools do to limit the negative effects (if any) of working on students?

Can we assess the effects of work on the health and well-being of young people?

To what extent would restricting the hours of 16- to 17-year-olds lead to adverse economic consequences?

How can we successfully address or resolve the conflict between the "value of education" and the "value of work?"

The scope of issues affecting the education and work of so many young people cannot be narrowed to the impact of hours of work on academic performance or health and welfare.

The task force discussed at some length the range of social and economic circumstances facing young people: single parent families, two-income families, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse. The changing workplace and the power of the media all underscore the complex- ity of the world in which young people are expected to mature and make important life choices.

Recognizing the influence of these and other factors, the task force selected two guiding principles:

1.It is the primary duty of society to educate its youth and in so doing provide for their and its own future well-being;

2.It is the primary job of young people to avail themselves of the education provided.

The task force findings, analysis and recommendations reflect these principles.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 7 R E P CD

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The task force used four methods to gather information:

1. A review of major research studies and other important documentary resources;

2. A series of public hearings;

3. A survey of Oregon employers;

4. A survey of 16- and 17-year-olds;

These activities were conducted between October 1990 and March 1991. The task force met periodically to discuss the emerging information and to develop findings and recommendations.

The rest of the report is organized into three parts: Chapters II-V summarize the information acquired from the research, hearings and surveys; Chapter VI addresses the key issues raised by the information gathered, and Chapter VII recommends a number of actions for consideration by the Commissioner and the Wage and Hour Commission.

CHILDL ABOR TASK F ORCE 8 R E P C:)

CHAPTER II BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Most of the research examining the relationship between education and work has occurred during the past 10 years. There is a growing body of survey information covering high school student populations, both nationwide and in individual states. Numerous articles have addressed individual aspects of the problem. Several publicly-funded study groups have published reports on various aspects of youth work. The following is a brief summary of some of these important studies and publications.

NEW HAMPSHIRE The New Hampshire study is probably the most comprehensive long-term study of work and school. The First Interim Report (January 1990) deals with self-reported survey responses of students in grades 10 through 12. The second Interim Report (September 1990) focuses on corresponding data from eighth and ninth grade students. Four interdependent issues were examined for the study:

1. The economic and non-economic factors that persuade young people to enter the labor force;

2. The economic behavior of young people once they begin to work (how many hours they work, how much they earn, how they spend, etc.);

3. The factors which influence the behavior described under item two;

4. The effects of employment and factors such as family characteristics and socioeconomic status on academic performance and high school dropout statistics.

Preliminary findings from the New Hampshire study include:

Workforce participation (currently employed or looking for a job last week) was 85 percent, with high rates from all three grades;

More than 44 percent work more than 20 hours per week and 23 percent work more than 25 hours per week. Nearly 30 percent work after 9 p.m. on school nights;

One-third of students reported that work interfered with school work and 23 percent reported that work interfered with co-curricular activities;

17 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 9 E P O

There is a strong negative correlation between the number of hours worked per week and reported GPAs.

The Second Interim Report of the New Hampshire study yields two major conclusions for its eighth and ninth grade groups:

Those who work 11 to 20 hours per week and more than 20 hours per week during the school year are absent more often from school, spend less time on homework and have lower self-reported grades;

The negative effect of working on academic achievement among those working 11 to 20 and more than 20 hours per week during the school year is extremely widespread.

The second Interim Report concludes on two important cautionary notes. First, "it is impera- tive that the student and family background characteristics be included in any serious study of the working and schooling relationship, because certain fundamentally different and systematic outcomes are associated with these characteristics." Second, "even if we conclude that working beyond a certain number of hours per week has a major negative impact on school achievement, we must not make policy based on this fact until and unless we have a clear understanding of why students choose to work this much and how the effect on academic performance comes about. To make policy in ignorance of what is actually occurring is to risk driving more and more students to a desperate choice between school and work in which they may well choose work."

NEW YORK STATE New York State began a review of its child labor laws in 1988. The results were summarized in a report from Thomas F. Hartnett, Commissioner of Labor, entitled Children In the Work Force: Setting Our Priorities. This report offers few statistics, but it clearly summarizes the current issues surrounding education and work for minors:

That a declining workforce creates greater availability of part-time, low-wage work and increased employer pressure to hire minors;

The time minors spend working is time away from school preparation, rest, family and social activities necessary for healthy social and psychological development;

The economic future of the current generation of minors will require them to be better educated and more educable than ever if they are to successfully fill the kind of high skilled jobs that the economy will provide;

The state has a legitimate stake in determining the economic future and an obligation to make the decisions that will best prepare its youth to be successful.

18 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 10 At the time of the report, 17-year-olds were permitted to work up to eight hours any day, up to 48 hours per week, six days a week, from 6 a.m. to midnight. Mr. Hartnett recommended substantial changes in New York's child labor laws. Specifically, Mr. Hartnett proposed that 16- and 17-year-olds, during times when school is in session, be limited to the following hours:

Four hours per day before any school day;

Eight hours per day before any non-school day;

A maximum of 28 hours per week;

A maximum of six days per week between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

YOUTH AND WORK: WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW This publication is authored by Ivan Chamer and Bryna Shore Fraser of the National Institute for Work and Learning. They report:

The majority of high school students work to have money to buy what they want or need; saving for future education and gaining work experience are distant secondary reasons;

There is a major information gap surrounding the psychological reasons youths decide to work;

"The majority of students work less than twenty hours per week, but 10 to 30 percent work over 30 hours per week;"

"Weekly income, in the more recent studies, averages $60 to $75;"

"The effect of working on grades is unclear." The negative effects of hours worked do not emerge until after 20 hours are worked;

Working has no effect on class rank, days tardy or absent or number of extracurricular activities;

Working experience is, in the short term, positively associated with employment and income after high school completion, and appears to promote desirable work habits and world-of-work knowledge/skills.

Chamer and Fraser provide a comprehensive agenda for additional and improved research in many areas surrounding the youth work phenomenon. They comment on the incomplete, uncoordinated and fragmented nature of the available information:

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 1 1 R E P CD

One of the areas that is most in need of attention is the provision of timely and accurate information on the nature and effects of work experience for all those affected. Many young people are inadequately informed about the responsibilities associated with a job, while many of their parents are unaware of the impact that working may have on their children's other activities and relationships. Teachers only rarely are informed of the jobs their students hold and what they do in those jobs. Few of the subjects they teach relate to the work experience and skills their students are gaining outside the classroom.

Counselors frequently devote most of their time to the current and future educational needs of students, with little time and attention paid to working students and the reciprocal effects of school and work. Employers generally have little or no contact or communication with employees' teachers or counselors and know little about ways to initiate and maintain linkages with schools for individual employees. And, finally, community organizations with a large stake in the future educational and occupational well-being of their citizenry rarely serve as providers of communication or linkages among all the parties in the community affected by young people who work while in school There is an important gap here that can be filled by implementing new information and education programs for each and all of these groups. (Emphasis added)"

NATIONAL PANEL ON WORK AND AMERICA'S YOUTH: REGIONAL FORUM The Northwest Regional Educational laboratory (NWREL) hosted a regional forum in Portland, Oregon on September 18, 1989, at which the National Panel on Work and America's Youth heard testimony from educators, business leaders, parents, students, community agencies and others from the Northwest concerned about the problems of youth, work and education. Key statements made during the forum include:

There is a perception that young people are ill-prepared, both in skills and work ethic, for the adult workplace; conversely, skill standards in the world of adult jobs are becoming higher.

Profound changes in our society and family structure have greatly altered expectations and results in schools and the workplace;

Formal cooperative work experience programs can provide an important link between school and work;

There is a desire to move towards an integration of all community resources currently engaged in coherent work and education programs;

There is a special concern for the work and schooling complexities of the dropout, "at risk" and variously disabled populations of young people.

20 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 12 R E P CD

WHEN TEENAGERS WORK (1986) This book by Ellen Greenberger and Laurence Steinberg, is a comprehensive study of the youth work issue. It examines this uniquely American situation in its historical setting. It also studies its economic and social causes and consequences, the widely-held views of parents and educators and its educational and psychological implications. Findings from the study include:

Working while in high school occurs most frequently among the white middle class;

"The average employed high school senior, working twenty hours per week at the minimum wage, earns about $275 per month" most of which they spend on their "own needs and activities;"

Since 1970 the values teenagers express toward careers and life-goals have become increasingly materialistic;

"In highly technological, highly specialized, and rapidly changing job market of contempo- rary America adolescent work has become, for many, irrelevant to adult careers;"

Twenty-five percent of teens' work time is spent either cleaning things or carrying things..." Most teen jobs provide little task variety, highly routinized activity, and constant repetition of fairly uninteresting tasks;"

Typical youth work provides little cognitively demanding activity and few opportunities for making important decisions or influencing the actions of others;

"Nearly half [of youth surveyed by the authors] felt that a grade school education or less would suffice to enable them to perform their job;"

"Confronted by a growing number of students who have made working a top priority and who do not meet their academic obligations, some teachers appear to have reduced their investment in teaching;"

Students (at about a 40 percent rate) balance jobs and school demands by taking only the minimum number of courses required to graduate and choosing easier courses. When work hours exceed 20 per week, the time spent on homework declines.

AMERICA'S CHOICE: HIGH SKILLS OR LOW WAGES! Published in June 1990, the report of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce does not deal directly with youth work issues, but rather with the lack of a national school-to- work transition process and its long-range economic implications for America's competitive position in the evolving world market. However, the commission's proposed solution to this problem addresses many of the youth work problems studied by the task force. 21

CHILDL ABOR TASK FOR C E 13 R E P CD

The report states that, in an era of declining workforce growth, if we cannot improve our productivity, we are condemned to a future in which "either the top 30 percent of our population will grow wealthier while the bottom 70 percent becomes progressively poorer or we all slide into relative poverty together."

The key is to improve productivity for a wide range of jobs. This will require workplaces to recognize that the current system of production organization (the "Tayloristic" method) is obsolete. The high productivity workplace relies on workers who have teamwork and problem-solving skills, who are computer-literate and who are willing and able to exercise inde- pendent judgment and decision-making. A comparison between the current state of affairs in American education and business and that of our chief foreign competitors shows that we lag far behind in developing and using these skills. Moreover, we are also behind in supplying the governmental and other types of support systems they require. Having outlined this situation, the report goes on to detail a series of recommendations:

Establish a national educational standard (called a Certificate of Initial Mastery) for all students to be met by age 16;

Assure that virtually all students achieve this standard, if necessary by creating special alternative programs;

Prohibit young people under age 18 from working unless they have achieved the certificate of mastery or were making progress toward the certificate;

Create a comprehensive system of technical and professional certificates and associates degrees for those who do not pursue a standard college degree. (Students seeking certificates would learn using a combination of structured work experienceand classroom instruction in a variety of academic subjects);

Encourage employers to invest in further education and training for employees.

In summary, America's Choice proposes a comprehensive, structured school-to-work educational system for the majority of high school students.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 14 E

CHAPTER III PUBLIC HEARINGS

In the fall of 1990 the task force held seven public hearings in the following communities: Pendleton, Bend, Eugene, Newport, Medford, Portland and Astoria. The task force heard testimony from 51 persons: 14 teachers or counselors, three school administrators, 22 business owners/managers, five persons representing government or public agencies, four students, and three non-affiliated parents. (See appendix for a listing of participants.) Most of the school personnel who gave testimony had some direct involvement in the working of high school students, i.e., were vocational education and work experience coordinators. Similarly, the business community was represented for the most part by small employers, usually fast food franchises.

These hearings did not represent a broad cross-section of viewpoints but did provide valuable information, and gave task force members the opportunity to explore the issues in-depth with those who testified.

EMPLOYERS As a group, the employers who testified rely heavily on the employment of minors. Most employ young people as workers because of the difficulty of finding enough adults willing to take those kinds of jobs. Employers said they would need to recruit more adult workers if the hours of 16- to 17-year-old workers were severely restricted.

Most employers who testified were opposed to the idea of regulating 16- and 17-year-old workers, although they generally supported restrictions for younger workers. Employers most often said 25 to 30 hours per week and working no later than 10 p.m. would be reasonable limits, if regulations were set.

Employers believe that young people benefit from their work experience, especially by developing a positive work ethic. Employers also believe that work provides a healthy alternative to "hanging out," using drugs, and the idleness they believe leads to trouble.

Most employers who testified were sensitive to young people's school needs and ready to use flexible scheduling to meet those needs. At the same time, most employers stated that they didn't inquire about grades when hiring or during employment. Nor did most employers make an effort to contact the school or parents before or during employment

C H I L D L A B O R T A S K F O R C E 15 R E P Co

Employers believe that parents ought to exercise more authority regarding their children's employment if working is a problem. Employers did express a willingness to participate in school-parent-community efforts to improve the youth work situation.

EDUCATORS AND PARENTS As a group, school personnel were sharply divided about the benefits or harm of youth work, but most agreed that structured work experience programs minimize the harm and maximize the benefits.

Afew educators presented the negative side of youth work, from falling asleep in class and reduced academic performance, to less participation in school functions. These same educators identified distinct trends in the past 15 years, with more young people working more hours and school activities being more at odds with job requirements. One school administrator described the frustration of losing students to the world of work in as little as two months.

A number of school personnel described the benefits of youth work, including enhanced self- esteem and confidence. These teachers and counselors were most often involved with structured work experiences. In these cases, work activities become a part of the student's academic goals, and work time is limited to 20 hours per week or less. Many educators also testified that work was a deciding factor in keeping some students in school and progressing toward graduation.

As with employers, school personnel said that parents are not involved enough in controlling their children's work life. The parents who testified supported the notion that it was difficult as a parent to control children who work. One said that regulations would help parents assert their authority. Parents felt that school was a young person's primary job and that work should be regulated if it interfered with school.

STUDENTS Probably the most surprising information gathered from the testimony was that perhaps ten percent of high school students are self-supporting. This was reported during hearings in Pendleton, Bend and Eugene. While it is clear such students need to work, most testimony indicated that earnings were used for clothes, cars and entertainment.

The students who testified were all involved in structured work experiences. It was dear from the evidence that structured work experiences were viewed positively and made school more relevant and "tolerable."

Note: See Appendix A for a list of hearings witnesses.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 16 R E P CD

CHAPTER IV EMPLOYER SURVEY

On behalf of the task force, Market Decisions Corp. of Portland (MDC) conducted a survey of Oregon employers. The questions used in the survey were developed by the task force in cooperation with MDC. The survey asked employers:

How they felt about their young employees; Why they employ minors; How they handled problems arising from school responsibilities; How they felt about different possibilities for minimizing the negative effects of working on school performance; What kinds of relationships they have with minors, parents and the school; What alternatives they would use in case of a reduction in the availability of student employees.

Asample of 400 businesses which regularly employ minors was used for the study. The sample was created by selecting the major businesses employing minors in Oregon as re- flected in the Wage and Hour Division Work Permit Unit's computer file of Employment Certificates (certificates required to be filed with the Bureau of Labor and Industries when an employer hires a minor). This yielded a grouping of employers as follows:

Restaurants 56 percent Grocery stores 17 percent Department stores 8 percent Hotels/motels 5 percent

Service stations 4 percent Nursing homes 3 percent Car washes, other retail stores, and schools 2 percent each

25 CHILD LABOR TASK FOR 17 R E

The Employment Division's list of Oregon employers was then used to provide a random sample of these businesses with proportional geographic dispersion based on county population.

The employers surveyed were generally larger than those appearing at the hearings. The survey targeted businesses with 10 or more employees to avoid situations where minor employees would be most likely to be the children of owners. The average size of these businesses is 51 employees. The average number of students working for them during the school year from September 1989 to June 1990 was 5.6 16-year-olds and 7.1 17-year-olds. They also employed an average of two 16- and 17-year-old minors not in school.

EMPLOYING MINORS Employers hire minors for a variety of reasons. Nearly 76 percent indicated that minors' availability for part-time work is an important or major reason they employ minors. Sixty-nine percent also indicated that the opportunity to teach young people important things they are not taught in school was another important reason. Less than half of the employers said accepting lower pay (41 percent), improving the image of the business (25 percent), or customers' preference for younger workers (11 percent) were important reasons for hiring minors.

Impact of Aspects of 14-17 Year Old Employees On Decision to Employ Them

Accept Part-Time Work 24% 76%

Education Outside School 32% 69%

Have More Energy 52% ad=480/0

Accept Lower Wages 59% 1. 41% Improves Business Image 75% ..\\W 25% Customers Prefer 89% la11%

100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

No Impact Some Impact Low Impact MI High Impact

CHILD LABOR T A S KF OR C E 18 R E P CD

Only 25 percent of employers make any special effort to recruit minors. Sixty percent of employers report they make no contact with the minor's parents or school when hiring a minor. Employers do contact parents 36 percent of the time and the school 11 percent of the time.

Contact Made When Hiring a Minor

(Both 7% Schoo111% .....,:;..: .s. Parents 36% .....tim :-.....: :::;,,,,,,,.....- .,,:ik.A....\\.\.x, .\ ,,,k.`,.. \ N.,,,r; NN, : \ .,' \

::.%\k .>\ 1/4, 'ZV

Don't Contact 60%

When asked how many hours per week 16- and 17-year-old students should be allowed to work during the school week, the average of all responses was 18.6 hours. Slightly more than half of the employers felt that 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to work more than 20 hours per week.

Not surprisingly, 59 percent of the employers surveyed would encourage their own child to work and another 32 percent would allow the child to work (without encouragement).

MINORS COMPARED TO ADULT WORKERS Employers were asked to evaluate 16- and 17-year-old employees in comparison with adult employees on several work habits. The question was asked in the following manner: Com- pared to your adult employees, are minors more or less likely to... The choices given employers were less likely, more likely, no difference.

The results of the survey are summarized as follows:

More likely Less likely No difference

Call in sick 51% 8% 40% Be absent 49% .6% 43% Break work rules 37% 8% 53% Break things 36% 3% 59%

Overall, employers identified minors as significantly more likely than adults to call in sick, be absent, break work rules or break things.

27 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 19 R E P CD

More likely Less likely No difference

Accidents 12% 14% 73%

In the case of accidents on-the-job, minors compared favorably with adults and were actually reported to have fewer accidents.

More likely Less likely No difference

On time 14% 32% 53% Take care of tools 7% 41% 50% Productive 11% 46% 42%

Minors were viewed as much less likely to be on time, less likely to take care of equipment and less productive than adult workers.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN SCHOOL AND WORK Employers were asked a series of questions concerning the possible conflict between school activities and work and how such conflicts are resolved.

Forty-three percent of employers who employ student workers said they had specific personnel policies addressing the school demands on student employees, while 49 percent said they had no special policies covering student workers.

Respondents indicated a range of actions when asked what they would do if told that a student's grades or school attendance were suffering due to work. For example, they might let the employee have some time off, or may allow time off only is the employee can find a replacement:

Single Action ,Muliple Actions

Dismiss the student 3% 6% Contact the school or parent 7% 25% Assign fewer hours 25% 56% Encourage fewer hours 20% 62%

According to the responses, employers are most likely to adjust the work schedule, either in consultation with the student or on behalf of the student, rather than fire the employee. Em- ployers were not likely to contact the school or parent, which is consistent with hiring decisions.

When asked about time off for special school projects, 78 percent said they would let the student have the time off and another 8 percent said they would grant time off if the student worker first found a replacement. 28

C H I L D LABOR T A S K F O R C E 2 0 R E P CD

In a related question, employers were asked if they supported or opposed a requirement that 16- and 17-year-olds be in school or involved in a school completion program as a requirement of employment. Employers were evenly divided on this question, with 43 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed.

IMPROVING AND REGULATING THE SCHOOL AND WORK SITUATION A series of questions were asked about ways to improve the school and work relationship. Employers were offered two options. One was more contact with parents and the school. The second was involvement in structured work experiences.

A majority of employers (63 percent) indicated a willingness to make periodic contact with schools or parents to determine the school performance of a student worker. Another 5 percent indicated they might make such contacts. However, 75 percent opposed the idea that a minor's school should be required to sign off on employment documentation before a student could be employed.

Employers overwhelmingly supported combining school and work experience in a more formalized and systematic manner (85 percent). Such activities would be super- vised by the schools, allow work to occur during school hours, involve on-the-job skills training and apply toward graduation.

Support for Formal Work/Study Program

Not Sure5%

29 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 21 R E P CD R T

WHAT IF 14- TO 17-YEAR-OLDS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK? Employers were asked to respond to the following:

If you could not hire 14- to 17-year-old employees, would you most likely hire adult part-time workers, work full-time employees overtime or find some other solutions?

The response by employers was very clear: 80 percent said they would hire adult part-time workers. Another four percent would work adult employees overtime and two percent indicated they would go out of business.

30 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 22 CHAPTER V STUDENT SURVEY

While there are a number of student surveys available or ongoing, the task force felt it was important to collect current data about Oregon youth. The task force survey was based on a selection of questions adapted from the New Hampshire survey and was conducted using a regionally distributed group of schools. The survey was constructed to provide a reasonably accurate description of Oregon's 16- and 17-year-old population as a whole, rather than specific demographic comparisons.

The survey did not include a sample of 16- and 17-year-olds who have left school. It would be useful to compare the responses of students in school and dropouts for the same age group. It would also be helpful to understand the employment patterns of dropouts because any statutes or rules regulating the employment of minors will be applicable to all minors, whether they are in school or not. Future research should include 16- and 17-year-olds not in school.

The schools represented in the survey, with the number of responses from each are as follows:

Triangle Lake High School, Blachley 38 Mohawk High School, Marco la 17 Crater High School, Central Point 390 Bend High School, Bend 101 Mt. View High School, Bend 158 La Pine High School, Bend-LaPine 67 Vocational Village, Portland 45 Benson High School, Portland 93 Lincoln High School, Portland 84 Marshall High School, Portland 90 Pendleton High School, Pendleton 329 Beaverton High School, Beaverton Aloha High School, Beaverton Sunset High School, Beaverton (combined) 306

31 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 23 Represented in this group are several small- to medium-sized rural schools (Triangle Lake, Mohawk, La Pine), larger non-urban consolidated schools (Crater, Pendleton), medium and large urban schools (Bend, Mt View, Benson, Madison, Lincoln) and large suburban schools (Beaverton, Aloha, Sunset). This sample reasonably reflects the state's regional diversity, with the largest concentration in the Willamette Valley but with Eastern, Central and Southern Oregon also represented. The only regions not represented were the coast and the southeast- ern area of the state.

A copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix D. The following information summarizes the key responses from 16- and 17-year-olds.

STUDENTS IN THE WORKFORCE At the time of the survey, about 50 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds were working and another 9 percent was looking for work. Another 29 percent reported recent summer or seasonal work.

Employment Status PERCENT OF ALL 16 AND 17 YEAR OLDS

Seasonal 5.5% Looking for Work 9.2% Never Employed 11.5%

Currently Employed 50.5%

Worked Summer 23.4%

A comparison between males and females and age difference can be found in the charts that follow. Slightly more females (58 percent) than males (49 percent) were working and 53.4 percent of 17-year-olds were working compared to 44.7 percent of 16-year-olds.

C H I L D LABOR T A S K FORCE 2 4 R E P CD

Employment Status

PERC ENT OF MALES PERCENT OF FEMALES

Seasonal Seasonal 5.8% 5.2% Looking for Work Looldng for Work 7.8% 10.3% Never Employed Never Employed 12.1% 11.4%

Currently Employed 52.7%

Worked Su Worked Summer 25.5% 20.4% Currently Employed 48.8%

Only 11.5 percent of those responding had never worked. The figure for 16-year-olds who have never worked was 18.8 percent compared to 9.3 percent for 17-year-olds.

The number of 16- and 17-year-olds currently enrolled in Oregon public schools is estimated at 65,000 based on information taken from the Department of Education enrollment figures for 1989-1990. Using all survey responses, it is estimated that 40,000 16- and 17-year-olds are working or actively seeking work.

The level of work force participation by 16- and 17-year-olds shown by the task force survey is consistent with participation levels found in other studies. The most recent figures available are from the ongoing study being conducted by the New Hampshire Department of Employ- ment Security, where due to special conditions, labor market participation of 10th, 11th, and 12th grade students was above 80 percent. The most recent national data, from the 1979-82 National Longitudinal Surveys of the Labor Market Experience of Youth, shows a range of 70 to 85 percent, while a recent survey of 29,000 11th graders by the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicated 56 percent of the respondents reported working every week.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 33

C H I L D L A B O R T A S K F O R C E 2 5 Employment Status

PERC ENT OF 16-YEAR-OLDS PERC ENT OF 17-YEAR-OLDS

Seasonal Seasonal 6.3% Looking for Work 8.6% Never Employed Currently Employed 9.3% 44.7%

Currently Employed 53.4% Worked Summer 22.5%

Among those 16- and 17-year-olds currently employed in Oregon, 50.1 percent work more than 17 hours per week, with 24.5 percent working 23 or more hours per week. Thirty-five percent report working after 9 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday nights and nearly 8 percent work beyond 11 p.m. Surprisingly, 18.1 percent report working before 8 a.m. Monday through Friday two or more days per week.

Hours Worked Per Week PERC ENT OF ALL 16 AND 17-YEAR-OLDS

5 or Fewer Hours 1030/ 23 or More Hours 24.5% 6-10 Hours 17.3%

11-16 Hour 17-22 Hours 22.2% 25.6%

C H I L D L A B O R TASK F 0 R C E 2 6 R T

Hours Worked Per Week

PERCENT OF MALES PERCENT OF FEMALES

5 or Fewer Hours 5 or Fewer Hours 23 or More Hours 9.5% 10.69i<--... 23 or More Hours 20.3% 6-10 Hours 27.7% 6-10 Hours 16.1% 18.0%

17-22 Hours 11-16 Hours 17-22 Hours 26.0% 20.5% 11-16 Hou 262% 25.1%

Hours Worked Per Week

PERCENT OF 1 6-YEAR-OLDS PERC ENT OF 17- YEAR -OLDS

5 or Fewer Hours 5 or Fewer Hours 23 or More Hours 12 9% 19.0% 6-10 Hours 6.3% ------23 or More Hours 8.6% 22.5% 6-10 Hours 221%

11-16 Hours 17-22 Hours 9.3% 218%

11-16 Hours 17-22 Hours 22.1% 28.5%

Lateness of Hours PERC ENT OF ALL 16 AND 1 7-YEAR-OLDS

After 11 p.m. 7.8% Prior to 7 p.m. 9 p.m. 11 p.m. 33.9% 28.3%

7 p.m. 9 p.m. 29.6%

C H I L D LABOR T A S K FOR C E 2 7 R E

FINDING EMPLOYMENT Most 16- and 17-year-olds find employment for themselves. The survey indicates that only 14.4 percent of those currently or recently employed were participating in school sponsored "work experience" programs. For the most part, how the job is acquired has little to do with the kind of work involved. The survey shows 39.9 percent work in fast food environments, 27.4 percent work as store clerks/salespersons, 18.9 percent perform manual labor, almost 5percent work in health care and 9.2 percent do office or clerical work.

Type of Job PERC ENT OF ALL 16 AND 17-YEAR-OLDS

Hospital/Health 4.6% Office/Clerical 9.2% Fast Food Manual Labor 39.9% 18.9%

Clerk/Salesperson 27.4%

Comparisons in Type of Jobs between 16 and 17-year-olds and males and females follow.

Type of Job

PERC ENT OF MALES PERC ENT OF FEMALES

None of Above None of Above Hospital/Health 162% Fast Food 162% 3.9% Fast Food -., 29.7% HospitaVHealth 36.5% Office/Clerical 5.6% 3.7% Office/Clerical 11.4%

Manual Labor Manual Labor 25.5% Clerk/Salesperson 25.5% 22.5% Clerk/Salesperson 232%

CHILD L A B 0 R T A S K F 0 R C E 2 8 Type of Job

PERCENT OF 1 6-YEAR OLDS PERCENT OF 17 -YEAR OLDS

None of Above None of Above HospitaVHeaftti 14.3% 19.7% Fast Food 3.5% FagFood HospitaVFlealth 33.3% 35.4% 3.9% Office/Clerical 8.4% Office/Clerical 5.7% Manual Labor Mantra' Labor 14.7% 15.4% Clerk/Salesperson Clerk/Salesperson 21.9% 23.7%

The task force survey of employers confirms these results. That survey determined that the major employers of 16- and 17-year-old youth population are (in order) restaurants, grocery stores, department stores, hotels/motels, service stations, nursing homes, car washes and (other) retail stores.

Clearly, teenagers fill a very specific place in the labor market The kind of work they do and those who employ them reflect this. They work almost exclusively at part-time jobs, generally involving routine repetitive tasks and requiring little skill or training. Most of these jobs pay at just above minimum wage (currently $4.75 per hour in Oregon), although 36 percent of those surveyed make more than $5 per hour. They rarely provide any benefits beyond meals or employee discounts. With their flexible hours and freedom from larger responsibilities, these jobs seem to complement the schedules and "work intentions" of most teenagers.

Only one-fourth of the students surveyed by the task force expressed strong distaste for their jobs, while slightly more than half said their job gave them status or self-respect and taught them useful skills at the same time. Seventy-one percent said it was not a place to start a career and 90 percent said the job was not as important as school. Seventy-five percent said the job is something they did "just for the money." (See the chart titled, "Reasons for Working" on the following page.)

C H I L D L A B O R T A S K F O R C E 2 9 R E P R T

Reasons for Working PERCENT RESPONDING YES OR NO TO QUESTIONS

90 so

80 75 73 71 70

60 55 54

20 10-

0 Start Career School For the Money Feel I Have To Status/Esteem Learn Job Skill Unimportant

As stated earlier, 11.5 percent of the students have never been employed. The following chart shows the reasons for not working (this includes responses from everyone not employed nor actively seeking work at the time of the survey).

Reasons for NOT Working PERCENT OF VARIOUS RESPONSES

Too Many Hours 4.3% Helping Family 16.2% Sports/Activities 33.1%

Parents Forbid 16.9%

Study Time 29.5%

L D L A B O R TASK F O R C E 3 0 For those who choose not to work, 33.1 percent said they wanted to participate in school activities. Another 29.5 percent said they needed time to study. A number of responses related to family issues. Nearly 17 percent said their parents would not give them permission to work, while another 16.2 percent needed to help at home.

TIME LEFT FOR HOMEWORK? Students were also asked how much time they spent doing homework on school nights. Nearly 60 percent reported they did an hour or less per night. Another 23.7 percent do 60 to 90 minutes per night and only 6 percent average two or more hours per night. While 22.3 percent of those who have never worked average at least 90 minutes of homework per night, only 14.6 percent of students who work have that same 90-minute average. This is a substantial variance.

Time Spent on Homework at Home

PERC ENT OF THOSE EMPLOYED PERCENT OF THOSE NEVER EMPLOYED

120+ Minutes 120+ Minutes 5.8% 7.6% 90 120 Minutes 8.8% 90 120 Minutes 14.7%

060 Minutes 6093 Minutes 060 Minutes 50% 24.6% 60.7%

C H I L D LABOR T A S K F O R C E 3 1 PARENTAL I NVOLVEM ENT The survey also asked questions about parental involvement and guidance. Survey results show that 51 percent of parents rarely or never check on homework, 69 percent never or rarely limit privileges due to poor grades and 77 percent never or rarely limit TV or time with friends.

Parent's Involvement/Guidance PERC ENT RESPONDING NEGATIVELY OR AFFIRMATIVELY

80 77

Check Homework Reward Grades Limit TV/Friends Punish Bad Grades

Never/Rarely 0 Sometimes/Often

BUYING POWER Young people have substantial buying power: Nearly 50 percent of the students earn more than $70 per week. The graphs that follow show how this money is spent. A surprising number of students reported that they were self-supporting (10 percent). Another 5 percent said their earnings go mainly to support the family.

More than half of the students (56.8 percent) spend none of their earnings on further education and only 11.9 percent indicated they spend most of their money on education. In contrast, 48.4 percent indicated they spent most of their money on items and entertainment and 31.7 percent spent most of their money on car expenses.

C H I L D LABOR T A S K F O R C E 3 2 Insummary, students feel they can learn useful things on the job (55 percent). However, such jobs are not a place to start a career (71 percent) but something you do for the money (67 percent). Money earned on the job is spent mostly on your car (32 percent) and to buy things or to have fun with your friends (48 percent).

How Teens' Earnings Are Spent PERCENT SPENT FOR FURTHER EDUCATION

Most

Some 30.5%

How Teens' Earnings Are Spent

PERCENT SPENT TO SUPPORT SELF PERCENT SPENT TO SUPPORT FAMILY

Most Most Some 4.5%

54.3%

C H I L D L A B O R T A S K F O R C E 33 R E P C)

How Teens' Earnings Are Spent

PERCENT SPENT ON THINGS/FUN PERCENT SPENT ON CAR/CAR EXPENSES

None 72%

Some 33.8%

REFLECTIONS ON THEIR FUTURES Other survey questions reveal a more serious side to the outlook and expectations of young people. Nearly 95 percent expect to graduate and 37 percent expect to get a four-year college degree while another 11 percent expect to earn at least a master's degree. Another 24 percent expect to attend a community college. Only 11 percent said that they would go directly to work.

The students also expressed their reasons for attending school. More than 85 percent reported they liked certain classes, another 93 percent said education was important to getting jobs, 48 percent reported they had no choice and 27 percent said there was nothing better to do.

The students were also asked to rank the importance of a number of items in their lives. The following is a summary of the responses.

HOW IMPORTANT IS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IN YOUR LIFE?

Very Important Have strong friendships 79.0% Being able to find steady work 78.9% Being successful in my work 77.1% Finding right person to marry, happy family 72.7% Having leisure time 71.8% Giving my children better opportunities 67.8% Having children 42.0% Having lots of money 39.2% 42

C H I L D LABOR T A S K F O R C E 3 4 R E P CD

Very Important Helping others in my community 30.6% Getting away from parents 21.7% Working to correct social problems 20.9% Getting away from this area 16.8% Living dose to parents, relatives 16.7%

Being successful in work, finding steady work, finding the right person, having strong friendships and leisure time received the highest ratings. Helping people in the community, working to correct social and economic problems and having lots of money received relatively low scores.

THE EFFECTS OF WORKING ON GRADES Finally, the task force was interested in comparing grade point averages (GPA) with hours worked. For the entire sample, 28.8 percent reported a GPA of 2.5 or less. This increases to 33 percent for those working more than 23 hours per week; it increases to 39.4 percent for those working after 11 p.m. This is addressed in greater detail in Chapter VI.

Grade Point Averages PERCENT BY HOURS PER WEEK/LATE HOURS WORKED

All Employed 17 -22 23+ Per 9 -11 After 11 Per Week Week P.m. P.m.

2.5 or Less 0 2.6 or More

C H I L D L A B 0 R T A S K F O R C E 35 CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The information gathered from the hearings, surveys and research of the literature on youth work offers a rich mix of views on this American phenomenon. Providing a balanced summary of these viewpoints is not easy. As the evidence suggests, youth work is seen as both constructive and damaging to educational success and future employment potential depend- ing on a person's perspective as parent, employer, educator or student. What is beyond dispute, however, is that youth work has been on the rise the past two decades. The challenge is to find the appropriate balance of school and work.

HOW EMPLOYERS VIEW YOUTH WORK Employers are the best represented group in this study. They gave the bulk of the hearings testimony and were separately surveyed as well.

Employers of 16- and 17-year-olds believe that youth work is beneficial almost without exception. They feel it teaches valuable work skills, enhances self-confidence, promotes self-esteem, establishes a work ethic, makes youth more accountable and responsible and keeps youth out of trouble. The capacity of work, almost any work, to build character, a cornerstone of America's puritan work ethic, is unquestioned.

Employers dislike the message any regulation of students' right to work would send to these employees. Regulating hours would not only deprive young people of the benefits of working, employers believe it would tell them Oregon is not a good place to work.

Employers believe their role parallels and complements that of the schools. When asked if factors such as part-time availability, willingness to work for low wages or the greater energy of the young influenced their decision to hire minors, Oregon employers rated theresponse "working can teach 14- to 17-year-olds important things that are not taught in school"as highly as part-time availability. More than one employer said young employees shouldpay them to work during the first six months since the lessons to be learned were so valuable.

Employers were asked to compare minor employees with adults on a number of "work ethic" issues, such as being on time, calling in sick, observing safety rules, being careful with the employers' tools or equipment and using time productively. In every instance, minors ranked lower than adults. Presumably, employers feel youth work can help build the work ethic and habits that they eventually find in adult workers.

44 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 37 R E P CD

During the hearings, many employers also expressed concern that young people have too much time to "get into trouble" if not engaged in extracurricular activities or work.

In general, employers found no harm in students working 10 to 25 hours per week, working until 10 p.m. on nights before school and working up to an hour longer one or two school nights a week. Some advocated a four-hour minimum shift.

Both in testimony and in the survey, employers expressed willingness to accommodate the young worker's need for flexible schedules or reduced hours. Students seem to agree that it is not difficult to get employers to adjust their working hours. Fifty-six percent of employers surveyed said that if they were told by parents or school that a student's grades or attendance were suffering because of work they would "assign the student fewer working hours." Sixty- three percent said they would be willing to make periodic contact with parents or schools to find out how a student employee is doing.

Despite these assuring responses, however, most employers did not feel a sense of responsibility for a student's performance in school. Less than 40 percent said they contact the school or parent when hiring a student and very few employers ask about grades when hiring or otherwise monitor a student's academic performance. Employers did express a willingness to adjust schedules and hours if a student had a problem with declining grades, absenteeism or failure to complete homework. However, employers expect the student, the school and the parent in particular to monitor the impact of work and request adjustments when problems occur.

During the hearings, representatives of a major fast food restaurant shared their policies on youth workers. These policies include: asking for GPA on the application form, having parents sign a contract covering hours and shift times, giving bonuses for school attendance and grades, allowing students to study at the workplace, providing tutors and encouraging dropouts to pursue a GED. Unfortunately, little evidence was found that more than a scattering of employers pursue such progressive policies to support the academic endeavors of their workers.

HOW EDUCATORS VIEW YOUTH WORK There are sharp differences among educators about the effects and value of youth work. Those favorably disposed to youth work, primarily career counselors, work experience and vocational-education coordinators, applaud its educational value. They cite the utility in "saving" a portion of those who might otherwise drop out and the value of work as an important option for those who find the standard curriculum does not match their learning style. As a group these educators find in the student's experience of work many of the same virtues expressed by employers. Even when they criticize some of the consequences of youth work such as the materialism it seems to foster, they see them as negligible compared to its overall benefits.

45 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 38 However, educators are disturbed by the behavior of their working students: sleeping and inattentiveness in class, attendance problems, failure to complete or turn in homework assign- ments, diminished participation in school activities, declining commitment to school and growing interest in the workplace, lower GPAs and a reduction of academic goals and choices. Testimony in the hearings underscored other negative behavior associated with money such as drug and alcohol abuse and indebtedness. These educators spoke vigorously of the need for regulation and monitoring.

These educators do not want to deny young people the opportunity to work. However, there is an emerging agreement that some types of work are more enriching and useful than others in the development of the student. Many educators favor a "quality" work experience for young people established through ongoing interaction involving employers, parents and educators.

HOW PARENTS VIEW YOUTH WORK Parents are the least represented of the parties involved in this issue. Although many of the employers and educators who testified are parents, they rarely spoke as parents. Therefore, for the purpose of this report, the term "parents" refers to parents who do not work in schools or own or manage businesses employing minors.

Everyone concerned with the youth work issue recognizes that parents play, or ought to play, a major role in the work-education balance of their children. Schools and employers say parents should be responsible for deciding whether young people work and, if so, how much and 'how often. At the same time, most agree this happens all too rarely. According to the student survey, when students who do not work were asked why, less than 20 percent an- swered that their parents would not let them. Some observers suspect that most parents have little real control over their teenage sons and daughters when it comes to the question of employment.

Not incidentally, some students contribute to the family finances. Even where this is not the case, the earnings of student workers relieves the pressure on parents to provide the right clothes, transportation and other "needs." This is not to say that large numbers of parents do not still try to guide the choices of their children. It is difficult to provide authoritative parental guidance in circumstances where 10 percent of the students surveyed reported living essen- tially "on their own" and another 30 percent live with one or the other biological parent or with a step-parent.

Not many parents attended the task force public hearings. Of those who did, several supported greater regulation of youth work, saying it would be easier for them to assert their authority if they had legal rules to back them up.

46 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 39 R E P CD

WHAT MOTIVATES YOUNG PEOPLE TO WORK? The research for this report suggests four primary reasons young people choose to work. First, the prevalence of youth work suggests that family and school no longer provide young people with the same types of values as they did two generations ago. Second, although young people report that education is more important than working, their actions are to the contrary. For example, 75 percent of students said making money was a reason for working as compared to self-esteem (55 percent), or learning job skills (54 percent). Third, work as a source of self-esteem or useful job skills is dearly not a sufficient explanation. Greenberger and Steinberg, for example, indicated that youth workers said they could do their jobs with a grade school education. Further, the Oregon survey shows that young people recognize the discontinuity between their current work and possible adult work or careers. Seventy-one percent reported that their work was not a place to start a career. Fourth, a very small percentage of young people in school have any economic compulsion to work. According to the student survey, 10 percent are self-supporting and another 5 percent help support the family.

From this information it is reasonable to suggest that one of the primary motives for the increase in youth work is peer pressure. It is significant that the student survey shows students rate the desire for friendships as their top value. It appears that many young people seek the lifestyle of the youth culture, a set of things and behavior which leads to acceptance by one's peers. The inability of the family and school to satisfy young people's peer requirements and the desire to buy items which will fulfill those requirements is strong enough to motivate many students to find a way to earn money.

The research also shows that many young people seek work because schools fail or bore them. Others choose to work because it provides a degree of economic freedom. Despite these responses, it does not follow that young people are making an "either /or" choice to turn their backs on education. Most of the students surveyed have a general understanding of the importance of education and its relationship to future employment Most young people expect to go to a two- or four-year college. But many young people don't understand the requirements of adult work or continuing education.

Unfortunately, there is too little evidence that employers, the schools or parents have established real connections between a young person's education, their work and their dreams.

DOES WORK ADVERSELY AFFECT STUDENTS' ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE? This is the most difficult youth work issue to address without qualification.

The research suggests that there is a negative correlation between academic performance (as measured by GPA, or standard test results) and working. The research suggests academic performance suffers when the number of work hours exceeds a critical threshold, estimated to be between 14 and 20 hours per week. Most observers have carefully avoided saying that 47 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 40 working causes this negative effect. Nevertheless, two theories are advanced to account for the association. One is the time constraint problem, in which working many hours takes time away from homework, test preparation and sleep. The second is the pre-selection bias, which suggests that those who do poorly in school to begin with, or who are not interested in school, work longer hours knowing they will not pursue education beyond high school. In other words, they choose to get a head start in the labor market. It is possible that these factors may occur simultaneously or even reinforce each other.

The Oregon student survey shows students who work more than 17 hours a week past 11 p.m. are three to four times more likely to to have aGPAin the 1.0 to 1.5 range. They are four to five times less likely to be in the 3.5 to 4.0 GPA range.

Academic performance, measured byGPAor standardized test results, is an obvious indicator of the effects working can have on a student's education. No less important, however, is the fact that about fifty percent of the students themselves say that work negatively affects their school work at least "somewhat," and 30 percent report that work interferes with participation in school activities. Moreover, the more students work, the less time they spend on homework.

Finally, there is the question of the intangible effects of working on academic choices and the effects of diminished student commitment. Do students working long or late hours chdose the fewest and easiest courses available that will still enable them to graduate? Do teachers demand less because of the work demands on the students? Something is clearly amiss when more and more universities and employers report that high school graduates lack the basic skills required for success. Even more ironic, employers consistently lament the lack of work ethic on the part of young people entering the adult world of workthe same quality extolled by employers as the core of youth work.

LIKELY'ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS? During the task force hearings, employers expressed concern about the economic effects of possible hours restrictions on 16- and 17-year-olds. A few employers said such restrictions would force them to close their business at 10 p.m. because adult workers were not available. They also said it was pointless for a young person to work less than a four-hour shift. They also mentioned increased labor costs and higher prices to the customer.

In contrast, when the employers surveyed were asked what they would do if they could not hire 14- to 17-year-olds, 80 percent (including 77 percent of restaurants) indicated they would hire part-time adult workers. Only 2 percent said they would go out of business.

The State of New York established restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, induding limits of four hours a day on school days, 28 hours a week and no work hours later than 10 p.m. Such restrictions in Oregon would eliminate an estimated 15 to 20 percent of the current work 48 CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 41 R E P C)

hours of 16- and 17-year-olds. This, in turn, would result in a four to five percent increase in labor costs, based on information from the student survey and assuming that an employer would have to pay someone else $1 per hour more for every hour not worked by 16- and 17- year -olds.

There would be other economic consequences. Those young people not in school, or in school, but living on their own or contributing substantially to their family income, would be severely affected. Those who work 30 to 40 hours per week to carry car payments and insurance on new cars (or other major retail debts) would also be hurt by such restrictions. The task force was told it is likely that some of these students would drop out of school to be able to work more hours. Some would look for and probably find a second job so they could continue to meet their payments.

Finally, there would be a corresponding decline in 16- and 17-year-olds' disposable income on the order of 10 to 15 percent (made up of those who worked the additional hours).

These are the most readily foreseeable economic consequences. The question is whether substantial benefit might result from such restrictions.

In all likelihood the restrictions described above would do little to change the work and school balance. At best, they might add three to four more hours per week to the student's available homework/study/rest time. The evidence suggests that the negative association of work hours and grades begins after 20 hours per week are worked. To have significant impact, the limits would need to be strictprobably not more than 20 hours per week and no later than 9:30 p.m. At this level of restriction, the economic impact on those businesses that rely on 16- to 17-year-olds would increase.

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF WORKING ON THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS In addition to considering the academic effects of work, the task force was charged with looking into the effects of work on the health and well-being of 16- and 17-year-olds. The evidence suggests that there may be important health, safety and well-being issues associated with the increasing incidence and intensity of youth work since the early 1970s. The U.S. General Accounting Office, using data supplied by the U.S. Department of Labor, reported in April 1990 that violations of Hazardous Order Provisions increased from 3,679 in 1983 to 8,709 in 1987, dropping to 6,798 in 1989. The Oregon figures are 11 in 1983, 131 in 1987 and 48 in 1989.

For the 26 states that report on-the-job injuries and illnesses to the Department of Labor, the number of such injuries and illnesses of minors under age 18 increased from 27,480 in 1987 to 31,647 in 1988. Oregon's figures for these years are 647 and 703, respectively.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 42 R E P O

The data from the survey of students provides additional information. Nine percent of students responded yes when asked: "Have you been injured while working on your current or most recent job to the point of being unable to engage in your normal activities for more than three days?" Using the earlier estimate of roughly 50,000 14- to 17-year-olds working at any given time, nine percent would indicate that there would be approximately 4,500 on-the-job injuries annuallysix times the number reported to the United States Department of Labor.

To assess health issues, students were asked, "Have you experienced an increase in any of the following since you began working?"

14.5% reported increased sleeplessness; 11.3% reported increased feelings of depression; 7.4% reported increased difficulty concentrating; 8.2% reported increased headaches/stomach-upset; 58.5% reported increased tiredness.

About 50 percent of those who work experienced an increase in more than one of these factors.

The possible effects of work on the psychological well-being of 16- and 17-year-olds are difficult to assess. Greenberger and Steinberg report a number of effects which could be included in this category: increasesat least among middle class youthin negative behavior related to money, such as increased alcohol and drug use, increased absences from school and tolerance of unethical and negative behavior in the workplace. More subtle still, and potentially even more harmful is the phenomenon of "pseudo maturity," "the result of the young people's mastery of the social manifestations of adulthood without the corresponding psychological maturity. Such young people may emerge from adolescence possessing the superficial signs of adulthood, but may lack the necessary inner equipment to pursue the roles of worker, parent, spouse, and citizen with zest, competence, and commitment."

It would be misleading to blame all or perhaps even a majority of the health, safety and well- being effects described above to youth work alone. Just being a teenager, coping with one's school work, family, the changes in one's body and one's interpersonal relationships produce great stress. Nevertheless, the demands of school and work, especially working long and late hours, should not be considered negligible.

50 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 43 HOW CAN SCHOOL LIMIT THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS (IF FOUND) OF 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS WORKING? This initially seemed to the task force to be a reasonable issue to investigate. However, little information was readily available which might provide useful answers.

The degree to which schools can mitigate the effects of youth work depends on several factors. Ideally, the school experience should be exciting, challenging, rewarding and fulfilling. For many students, school is a positive experience. Eighty-five percent responded that they liked some of their classes and 68 percent reported that school provided activities and a place to be with friends. At the same time, 48 percent reported they had no choice and 27 percent said they had nothing better to do. While school may or may not be a rewarding, fulfilling experience for all students, the fact remains that a majority of students are working and many are working long hours and/or late into the night.

Schools can take steps to limit the possible negative effects of youth work. For example, schools can provide accurate, extensive and realistic information about the world of work which both guide and assist student choices and emphasize the connection between their present and future education and the requirements of adult work.

Schools can also assure that the quality, quantity and timing of academic work do not suffer because students elect to work the equivalent of a half-time job or more. Academic standards should not be lowered, especially if students are expected to make informed choices and become qualified for a range of career options.

HOW CAN WE BALANCE THE COMPETING VALUES OF WORK AND EDUCATION? Do the values of school and work compete? It is clear that youth work is rarely structured to provide any meaningful connection between school and work. It is estimated that less than 10 percent of students are involved in work experience programs. This means that, for every 16- or 17-year-old whose job provides a meaningful work experience in which she or he uses what is learned in school on the job, learns transferable job skills, receives thoughtful evalua- tions and benefits from contact with adult co-workers, there are nine whose work provides none of these experiences. Unless such experiences are at the core of youth jobs, the work can most accurately be viewed as something to do "just for the money."

The task force concluded that a balance between school and work should be struck which enriches the whole person over the long-term. This balance must equip young people to do more than work. There is little evidence that youth work currently achieves these goals.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 44 R E P CD

(

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The task force concludes that steps need to be taken to lessen the negative effects of youth employment, such as work's potentially harmful effects on school performance. The task force also concluded that programs should be considered to facilitate the school-to-work transition while encouraging the overall cooperation of schools, employers and parents. Such cooperation will be essential to prepare students for the highly-skilled work that an increasingly complicated global economy will demand.

Accordingly, the task force recommends that a work authorization system be considered that would enable schools or parents to restrict a minor's right to work during the school year. The task force also recommends that employers voluntarily adopt employment guidelines for minors that could counteract potential work-related problems while encouraging academic performance.

In addition, the task force called upon employers to broaden the work experience of their young employees. Such programs, which could expose young workers to skills and responsibilities that could apply to a lifelong career, could blend effectively with expanded cooperative work experience programs in the schools.

TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS Youth work is not inherently good or bad;

Getting an education is a young person's primary job. Society has a strong interest in supporting that process;

52 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 45 Youth work is widely accepted and seen as proof of youth industriousness and responsibility in our culture. It is also on the rise. More young people are working more hours and are starting work at a younger age. Many employers use Toung workers to supplement their adult workforce. A growing number of employers rely primarily on a steady supply of youth to fuel their businesses;

The school-to-work transition cannot be left to chance and the circumstances of the mar- ketplace. The task force believes youth work, properly structured and monitored, can provide real benefits to young people.

TASK FORCE DISCUSSION The task force explored a number of options for balancing school and work. There were several suggestions for limiting the number of hours worked per week and the lateness of the hours. Serious consideration was given to recommending a limit of four hours per day and 25 hours per week, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., during the school year.

Possibly the most intriguing proposal was to establish a work permit program similar to a driver's license system. Prior to hiring, students would be tested on employment rights and regulations relating to minors. Upon successful completion, students would be issued a tem- porary permit. A permanent permit would be issued after two grading periods of maintaining or improving theirGPA.

This approach has much to offer. It addresses many of the concerns expressed during the hearings, such as a lack of information concerning employment rights and responsibilities and the need to keep work from negatively affecting academic performance. Unfortunately, such a license system would be costly to establish, maintain and regulate and is therefore unlikely to be enacted given the state's fiscal situation.

53 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 46 R E P CD

While some task force members argued in favor of restrictions on 16- and 17-year-olds, the majority of the task force concluded that other alternatives should be considered before restrictions.

The task force sought an approach which would do more than simply eliminate the worst working situations. It concluded that while rules restricting hours of work for 16- and 17-year- olds might mitigate the negative effects of work, it would do nothing at all to develop or promote work's positive potential. Nevertheless, the task force believes a way must be found to achieve the aims of restrictions. Employers need to recognize that they cannot make unlim- ited demands on students' time when school work begins to deteriorate. Students should be given a clear message that school is the primary job, that the "right to work" does not tran- scend the value of their schooling for themselves or society. Parents should be aware of the kinds of jobs their children perform and what hours they work. Finally, schools need to intervene effectively when they see the signs that work is undermining education.

RECOMMENDATIONS The task force's recommendations rely on the expressed willingness of the school and business community to achieve a better school and work integration for young people and suggest encouraging, and even compelling, parents to engage in this cooperative effort.

Ineffectual parental involvement during these critical years leaves many young people on their own to find values and make choices any way they can. Some choose a $300-a-month job requiring few skills rather than make the disciplined effort required to prepare for high skilled jobs. In the long term, it is a choice that may damage both our children and our society.

The aim of this recommendation is to involve schools and parents in monitoring the employment of young people and to encourage better coordination among employers, schools and parents. This approach would give authority to the schools to deny employment to a student because of declining grades or absenteeism, for example.

The current system of work permits and employment certificates provides a high degree of protection and accountability. When a young person contacts the bureau for a work permit, the bureau uses the opportunity to provide basic information about rights, rules and wages. Through the employment certificates, the bureau is able to review employer compliance with hours and type of work requirements. The bureau can also cross-reference work permits with employer certificates.

54 IL D LABOR TASK FORCE 47 R E P CD

This recommendation is not intended to replace the protection and enforcement aspects of this system, but rather to involve the schools and parents in a way that assures a balance between school and work. The task force did not discuss details of how a school and parent authorization procedure would impact the protection and enforcement elements of the current system, nor did it discuss how such a system might best be impleniented. Clearly, developing such a system will require cooperation among the schools, the bureau, and employers.

One of the systems reviewed by the task force is used by the State of Washington. This system requires that both the school and parent give authorization before the student can begin working. The Washington work authorization form includes information on proposed hours and times of work, wages and job duties.

In addition to this recommendation, the task force recognizes that many other youth work- enhancing activities can occur through voluntary cooperation among the families, schools, and employers of young people. As such, the task force recommends the following:

Employers and employer associations should voluntarily adopt guidelines for youth employment which are aimed at improving youth work

These guidelines should include the following:

Limits on the lateness of the hours worked. Late nights (after 10 p.m.) more than one night during a school week should be avoided;

Grades and attendance should be monitored and recognition given for outstanding or improved school performance. Consider cash bonuses;

Aplace for student workers to study or receive tutoring should be provided;

A letter should be sent to parents prior to employment, to explain personnel policies, job duties and employer expectations;

The student worker should be accommodated so school commitments are not compromised;

Adequate safety training should be provided.

In addition to these guidelines, employers should also consider adopting written personnel policies for their young workers. Written policies can benefit both the employer and the youngster by ensuring consistent treatment and clear ground rules.

55 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 48 Employers should consider programs which enrich the youth work experience

Employers should be urged to accept the role of mentor/teacher as well as employer by providing opportunities to teach young workers more than just their immediate tasks. Where possible, develop additional career paths and training, include workers who are minors in meetings where policies are discussed and give them access (if only as observers) to all operations. This may involve job rotation, working with stock and inventory, pricing, scheduling and an acquaintance with payroll and benefits. Employers should plan to discuss the minor's performance on a regular basis, explaining the criteria used for evaluation and encouraging the minor to participate in setting goals, solving problems and finding other ways to enrich the work experience.

Such activities can do a great deal to prepare young people for adult jobs and might even provide career opportunities within the particular business or industry. According to the survey, employers value youth work because it is an opportunity to teach important skills that they are not taught in schools. Job enrichment would go a long way toward achieving this laudatory goal of employers. The task force believes job enrichment flows from cooperation with schools as part of a structured work experience. According to information from the Department of Education, less than 10 percent of working students are involved in cooperative work experience programs.

School districts should expand cooperative work experience programs

While cooperative work experience programs take resources and time to properly structure, they can help both the student and the employer. According to the survey, 85 percent of employers expressed a willingness to enter into a structured work experience. This suggests a potential for a dramatic increase in cooperative work experience programs.

There is strong evidence that cooperative work experience programs can keep students interested in school and provide valuable learning experiences. During the public hearings, such programs were extolled by teachers, counselors, students and parents. In considering a broader application of existing programs, it is important that the learning component of such experiences not be compromised. Cooperative work experience must be integrated into the academic learning of a young person. Such programs have value because they link school and work.

Although the task force did not take a position on America's Choice recommendations, there was general agreement that the development of a formal school-to-work system must be given careful consideration. We believe the recommendations in this report support such a direction.

56 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 49 R E P CD

The task force recognizes that other actions can be taken to improve the youth work experience. For example, schools can provide better career information at an earlier age.Schools should also ensure that prospective workers have adequate information when seeking that first job.

Schools should work with the Bureau of Labor and Industries to develop courses on student workers' rights and responsibilities

The bureau currently offers assistance to schools in providing classes on employee rights and responsibilities. These activities should be expanded and curriculum developed as part of other courses. Such information needs to be offered to middle schools and high schools. In designing such programs, schools should consider using older students as mentors. These programs should also include information on the costs and benefits of work and information on how youth work may or may not be preparation for adult work.

One of the more recent trends in educational reform has been the emergence of school and business partnerships. These partnerships have evolved to include a wide range of business activities in the schools, including equipment donation, adopt-a-school programs and mentor arrangements. The task force believes school-business partnerships should include activities which are directed at improving the quality of youth work.

Schools should work with local chambers of commerce and employer associations to develop models of good employer-parent-school cooperation linking work and education.

It was striking to find that local chambers of commerce and school administrators in many communities never discussed the schooling and work of youth. Such dialogue seems appropriate and essential if youth work issues are to be properly addressed.

Such cooperative models focus on providing enriched job opportunities, structured work experiences and the introduction of a wide variety of careers to teachers and students. Such an approach may broaden the focus of existing school-business partnerships, but is consistent with the position that, if young people are going to work while in school, the work should be relevant to school and school should be relevant to the adult work world.

SUMMARY The task force recognizes that many of these recommendations go beyond the authority of the Commissioner. It is our hope that the Commissioner will continue to work with other policy makers to bring attention to the issues surrounding youth work and give careful consideration to the recommendations contained in this report. The task force stands ready to work with the Commissioner in these important matters.

57 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 50 APPENDIX A

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE BIBLIOGRAPHY

America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages (Executive Summary), The report of the Commis- sion on the skills of the American Workforce. Rochester, New York: National Center on Edu- cation and the Economy, 1990.

Baker, Andrea, ed., National Panel on Work and America's Youth. Regional Forum (Original pages submitted to the panel). Portland, OR Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1989.

Barton, Paul E. From School to Work (a policy information report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1990.

Benninghoff, Paul H. and David F. Aiken. "Pro and Con: Should Students Hold Part-time Jobs?" Oregonian (9/18/89), I37.

Caprino, Mariann. "Buying Power of Teens Soars." Oregonian (6-90), E12.

Carlson, Carol G. "Beyond High School: The Transition to Work." Focus 25. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1990.

Chamer, Ivan and Bryna Shore Fraser. Youth and Work: What We Know. What We Don't Know. What We Need to Know (Executive Summary). William T. Grant Foundation Commis- sion on Work, Family and Citizenship. Washington D.C., 1987.

"Child Labor Legislation Inhibiting Hiring of Minors." LPA Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Labor Policy Association, Inc., 9-90.

"Child Labor Protections." Position Statement, National PTA. Chicago, IL 1987.

Ciranny, Jan. Is Oregon's Future at Risk? A Profile of Oregon's Youth... Salem, OR: Oregon Employment Division, 1989.

"College Grads Flood Work Force." The Register Guard. Eugene, OR (6-18-90), 3A.

D'Amico, Ronald. "Does Working in High School Impair Academic Progress?" Sociology of Education 1984, 57: 152-164.

Dole, Elizabeth, Secretary of Labor. Testimony on Child Labor Enforcement before the Sub- committee on Labor Standards of the House Education and Labor Committee. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor, 6-90.

58 CHILD LABOR TASK F ORCE 51 "50 Million Workers Need Training..." Youth Record 2:22 (Nov. 1990), 1-2.

Gardner, Fran. "Teacher of Year Blasts After-school Jobs for Students." Oregonian (8-16-89), C5.

Gorman, Mark, Senior Director, Government Affairs, National Restaurant Association Statement before the House Subcommittee on Labor Standards re: Child Labor Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Restaurant Association, 1990.

Graves, Bill. "Survey Finds 9802 Students Quit in '88'89." Oregonian (7-24-90), Al.

Green, Gary and Sue Norrill Jaquess. "The Effect of Part-Time Employment on Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Research. 80:6 (July/Aug. 1987), 325-329.

Greenberger, Ellen and Laurence Steinberg. When Teenagers Work. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Hartnett, Thomas F., Commissioner of Labor, New York. "Children in the Workforce: Setting our Priorities." Albany, NY: New York Department of Labor, N.D.

Hamilton, Stephen F. "Calling for an American System of Apprenticeship." Education Week. 6-6-90, 36.

"Investing in Tomorrow": Conversations with Ray Marshall and William Brock, Co-chairs of The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Labor Relations Today. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Dec. 1990.

Lawrence, Jill. "Educators Question Merits of More Teens Juggling School, Jobs." Oregonian (7-16-89), E16.

Manno, Bruno and Kirk Winters. "Lies, Damned Lies, and Dropout Statistics. Youth Policy. 12:1 (Jan 1990), 14-21.

Mihalik, Maria. "The Lure of the Paycheck." Teacher Magazine (Jan. 1990), 36-39.

Oberst, Gail. "Educator: Work can Threaten Grades." Albany Democrat Herald. Albany, OR, 1990.

Salk, Dr. Lee. "After School Jobs: Are They Good for Kids?" McCall's. October 1990, 102-106.

Schaefer, Walt. "Working Teens See Profits, Pitfalls." The Cincinnati Enquirer (11-30-90), Extra 1.

"Selling America's Kids: Commercial Pressures on Kids of the 90s." Consumers Union Educa- tion Service, Mt. Vernon, New York, 1990.

59 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 52 Shan ley, Deborah A. "Reaching Our Nations Dropouts." Youth Policy, 10:7 (July /August 1988), 25-29.

Sylvester, Kathleen. "Teens are the Target of a Movement to Reform Child Labor Laws." Gov- erning. Dec. 1996.

"U.S. Business Must Learn to Play New Game..." BNAC Communicator. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Fall 1990, 18.

Weckstein, Paul "Youth, Employment and Education." Future Choices. Washington, D.C.: Youth Policy Institute, Spring, 1989.

Yasuda, Kenneth E. "First and Second Interim Reports..." Working and Schooling Decisions: A Study of New Hampshire Teenage Labor Market Behavior and The Level of Educational Attainment. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, Jan. and Sept. 1990.

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 53 R E P Co

APPENDIX B

HEARINGS WITNESSES

Pendleton: October 18,1990 1.Wayne Looney, Teacher/Coach, Pendleton High School 2. ElRae Louise Wells, Teacher's Aide, Pendleton High School 3.Beckie Roberts, Library Aide, Pendleton High School 4.Rena Alexander, Mr. A's Drive In, Hermiston 5.Madaleine Allen, General Manager, Red Lion Pendleton 6.Scott Haggberg, Manager, McDonald's 7.James Krout, Principal, Pendleton High School 8.Bryan Drennen, East Oregonian

Bend October 25, 1990 1.Jean Pence, Principal, Mt View High School 2.John Larkin, Bend Chamber of Commerce 3.Ken Cooper, Teacher, Mt. View High School 4.Teri Chandler, District Manager, Taco Time 5.Wayne Purcell, General Manager, River House 6.Tom Huston, Counselor, Bend High School 7.Julie Thomas, Taco Time, Madras 8.Colleen Quinton, Taco Time, Redmond

Medford November 27,1990 1. Ed Murray, Work Experience Coordinator, Phoenix High School 2.Bob Bray, Dairy Queen, White City 3.Kim Thorson, Marketing Director, Rogue Valley Mall 4.Mary Lou Stallcup, Vice President, Wendy's 5.Don Died, Area Manager, Wendy's 6.Scott Anderson, College Intern, Wendy's 7.Carole Taylor, Vocational Coordinator, Lithia Springs School 8.Chris Marical, Manager, Taco Time 9.Jerry Evans, Manager, Jacksonville Inn

Eugene November 1, 1990 1. Luanne Lynn, Owner, McDonald's 2.Pat Riggs, So. Willamette Public Industry Counsel 3.Marilyn Riley, Employment Division, At Risk Youth 4.Doug Johnson, Personnel Manager, Bi-Mart

CHILD LABOR TASK FO R C E 55 Newport November 15, 1990 1.Chad Samuels, Student, Taft High School, Lincoln City 2.Dwayne Tickner, Work Experience Coordinator, Taft High School 3.Jim Voyles, Teacher, Taft High School 4. Chris Knudsen, Restaurant Manager, Salishan 5. Paula Ward, Personnel, Salishan 6.Ellen Bristow, Parent 7. Roger Snelling, Owner, McDonald's, Newport/Lincoln City

Portland November 29, 1990 1. Gentria Sepp, Work Experience Coordinator, P.P.S. 2.Jim Albers, Work Experience Coordinator, P.P.S. 3.Andrea Shaw, Student, Cleveland High School 4.Jennifer Wilson, Student, Cleveland High School 5.Tammy Bolen, Student, Cleveland High School 6. Robby Steeves, Youth Employment Institute 7.Mary Holman, Job Placement, Wilson High School 8.Mary Ann Schwab, Vocational Village 9.Betsy Bennet, Administrator, Roosevelt High School 10. Marilyn Schultz, Teacher, Centennial High School 11. Dave Ubanks, North Portland Youth Service Center

Astoria December 4, 1990 1. Dave Bodway, Astoria Dairy Queen 2.Frank DeCius, Former Wage & Hour Commission Member 3.Rob Nicholas, Rob's Restaurant, Seaside 4.Wayne Poole, Pig & Pancake Restaurant 5.Joyce Aho, Youth Services Commission, Employment Division

CHILDL ABOR TASK FORCE 56 R E P CD

LETTERS AND OTHER WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Adams, Terry R., Reinholdt & O'Harra Insurance. Letter, 1-23-91. Anderson, Don, Work Experience Coordinator, Oregon City High School. Letter, 12-7-90. Bothman, Carl J., Coburg Road Dairy Queen, Inc./Brazier. Letter, 1-3-91. Brown, Dale E., Former Science Teacher, Centennial High School. Letter, 12-17-90. Davis, Marrit, Work Experience Coordinator, Eagle Point High School. Letter, 12-11-90. Gould, Doug and Mary, River Road Dairy Queen, Eugene, OR Letter, 1-4-91. Jensen, Philip L, Work Experience Coordinator, Klamath Union High School. Letter, 11-13-90. Kelly, Vance R., Letter, 9-24-90. Kahn, Doug, Assistant Principal, West Albany High School. Letter, with results of student survey 9-25-90. Loundgrof, Viela, Student, Eagle Point High School, Letter, N.D. Lynn, Luanne, Owner, McDonald's Restaurant, Eugene, OR Area. Letter, 11-6-90. Maskell, Donna L, Student/Employee at Fern Ridge Dairy Queen. Letter, N.D. McCallum, Michael R., Director of Government Relations & Operations, Oregon Restaurant Association Testimony before the Wage and Hour Commission, 7-18-90. Peil, Ron, Owner, Ashland Dairy Queen. Letter, 12-29-90. Pence, L. Jean, Principal, Mountain View High School, Bend, OR. Testimony, 10-25-90. Rush, Chris, Owner, Fern Ridge Dairy Queen, Veneta, OR. (1) Letter, 1-3-91. (2) Letter, 1-18-91, with student employee surveys. Sommerfeld, James, Administrative Assistant, Outside In. Letter, 2-14-91. Steeves Marsha, Student, Eagle Point High School. Letter, N.D. VanLeeuwen, Liz, State Representative, Dist. 37. Letter, 11-3-90. Ward, Lilliam E., Home Economics Vocational Teacher, South Medford High School. Letter, 11-30-90. Watters, David W., Dairy Queen of Eugene, Inc. Letter, with questionnaire/survey results from student employees, 1-11-91. Wensenk, Judy, Parent, Letter, 10-1-90.

63 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 57 APPENDIX C CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1.Since classes started this school year I was late for school. (Mark one)

1.1 Never 20.3% 1.2 1-2 times 30.3 1.3 3-6 times 24.4 1.4 7 or more times 24.8

2.Since classes started this school year I cut or skipped classes. (Mark one)

2.1 Never 47.6% 2.2 1-2 times 24.7 2.3 2-6 times 16.4 2.4 7 or more times 11.1

3.Since classes started this school year about how many days have you been absent from school for any reason except illness, vacation, or other excused absence? (Mark one)

3.1 Never 48.7 % 3.2 1-3 days 26.5 3.3 4-6 days 12.2 3.4 7 or more days 12.3

4.What were the reasons you missed school when you did not have an excused absence? (Mark all that apply)

4.1 I had to care for a member of my family 13.2% 4.2 I didn't feel like going to school 34.9 4.3 I was job hunting 1.6 4.4 I had problems with some person(s) at school 6.6 4.5 Other 43.8

5.Do you expect to graduate from high school? (Mark one)

5.1 Yes 94.4% ( 5.2 Probably 8.8 5.3 Probably not 7 5.4 No 8

64 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 59 R E P

6.In a typical day, about how much time do you spend on homework in school? (Mark one)

6.1 0-30 minutes 39.5 % 6.2 30-60 minutes 35.9 6.3 60-90 minutes 14.8 6.4 90 or more minutes 9.1

7. On a typical night before a school day (SundayThursday night) how much time do you spend on homework outside of school? (Mark one)

7.1 0-60 minutes 59.8 % 7.2 60-90 minutes 23.7 7.3 90-120 minutes 10.2 7.4 120 or more minutes 6.0

8.Which statement best describes your feeling about your school work? (Mark one)

8.1 I do as little work as possible 14.3% 8.2 I work hard for good grades 43.5 8.3 I'm satisfied to get average grades 29.6 8.4 I like the challenge of the subjects and don't worry about the grades 12.4

9.Which describes your current or most recent GPA? (Mark one)

9.1. 1.5 2.0 11.6% 9.2 2.12.5 16.7 9.3 2.6 - 3.0 27.3 9.4 3.1 3.5 25.4 9.5 3.64.0 19.0

10. In a typical week how much time do you spend on school-sponsored activities (e.g., band, clubs/organizations, sports)? (Mark one)

10.1 Less than 1 hour per week 50.4 % 10.2 1-3 hours per week 16.0 10.3 4-8 hours per week 13.7 10.4 8 or more hours per week 18.8

65 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 60 Ina typical week how much time do you spend on the following activities? (Mark one on each line)

(1) Rarely/(2) Less than(3) Once/Twice (4) Almost Never Once a Week a Week Every Day

11.Socializing with friends 2.3% 3.5% 13.8% 79.4% 12. Doing volunteer work 61.7 21.9 12.8 3.3 13. Spending time with parents or other adults 6.8 11.2 29.5 51.5 14. Taking lessons 68.4 9.7 11.8 9.5 15. Talking on the phone with friends 12.9 10.8 24.7 49.1 16. Watching TV 10.0 9.0 22.2 55.9 17.Listening to music 2.0 3.4 9.2 79.4

Questions 18-45 are designed to find out about jobs you have had during times when school was going on (from September to June). In these questions, "most recent" means the last job you had during a period when school was in session. If you have never worked or worked only during periods of school vacation, skip to question 46 after you answer question 18. If you are working but not attending regular high school classes, skip questions 26-28.

18. Check one of the following:

18.1 I am currently employed in a "non-seasonal" job 50.5 % 18.2 I worked the past summer or last school year, but not now 23.4 18.3 I don't have a job but I'm looking for work 9.2 18.4 I've never been employed (Skip to number 46) 11.5 18.5 My current/most recent job is/was "seasonal" 5.5

19. How many hours do you/did you usually work per week in your current or most recent job? (Mark one)

19.1 Less than 5 10.3 % 19.2 6-10 17.3 19.3 11-16 22.2 19.4 17-22 25.6 19.5 23. or more 24.5

BEST COPY AVAOLABLE 66 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 61 20. How many of the hours in question 19 are/were on weekends (Friday nights, all day Satur- day, and Sunday before 5 p.m.)? (Mark one)

20.1 None 15.9 % 20.2 1-5 22.9 20.3 6-10 30.7 20.4 11-15 19.5 20.5 16 or more 10.9

21. How late do/did you usually work on Sunday night through Thursday night? (Mark one)

21.1 Earlier than 7 p.m. 33.9 % 21.2 Between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. 29.6 21.3 Between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. 28.3 21.4 Later than 11 p.m. 7.8

22. How many days from Monday through Friday do/did you work before 8 a.m.? (Mark one)

22.1 Never 74.9 % 22.2 One day 6.7 22.3 2-3 days 7.5 22.4 3 or more days 10.6

23. At your current or most recent job, do/did you work more hours now (or at the end of the job) than when you started? (Mark one)

23.1 Yes 28.9 % 23.2 About the same 47.5 23.3 Less now/at the end 23.2

24. At your current or most recent job, are/were you asked to work more hours than your really want/wanted? (Mark one)

24.1 Yes 25.1 % 24.2 No, I want/wanted to work more hours 30.4 24.3 No, the number of hours is/was about right 42.9

25. Do/did you feel you can/could tell your boss no when you do/did not want to work additional hours? (Mark one)

25.1 Yes 57.8 % 25.2 No 18.1 25.3 Sometimes 23.2 67 C-H1LD LABOR TASK FORCE 62 26. Do/did you have to work during the time school is/was in sessionin order to make sure you will/would have a job during school vacation periods? (Mark one)

26.1 Yes 18.0 % 26.2 No 80.4

27. If you attend school, does/did your current or most recent job prevent you from taking part in any school-sponsored activities you would like to be/have been involved in?(Mark one)

27.1 Yes 30.6% 27.2 No 67.6

28. If you attend school, does/did your current or most recent job negatively affect your school work? (Mark one)

28.1 Yes 8.9% 28.2 Somewhat 38.5 28.3 No 51.8

29. What kind of work do/did you do for pay on your current or most recent job? (Mark one: If your job doesn't fit answers 1-5, leave blank)

29.1 Fast food counter/grill worker/waitperson 39.9 % 29.2 Store clerk/salesperson 27.4 29.3 Office or clerical worker 9.2 29.4 Hospital or health care worker 4.6 29.5 Manual laborer 18.9

30. Have you been injured while working on your current or most recent job to the point of being unable to engage in your normal activities for more than three days? (Mark one)

30.1 Yes 9.1 % 30.2 No 89.3

31. Have you experienced an increase in any of the following since you began working? (Mark all that apply)

31.1 Sleeplessness 14.5 % 31.2 Feelings of depression 11.3 31.3 Difficulty concentrating 7.4 31.4 Headaches/stomach upset 8.2 31.5 Tiredness 58.5

68 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 63 R E P CD

32. How much do you/did you earn per hour on your current or most recent job? (Mark one)

32.1 Less than $4.25 per hour 8.8 % 32.2 $4.25 - $4.99 per hour 54.5 32.3 $5.00$5.99 per hour 25.2 32.4 $6.00 or more per hour 10.8

33. On the average how much do you/did you earn per week (that is, gross wages: if you usually work 10 hours per week and earn $4.25 per hour, your gross weekly earnings are $4.25 x 10 = $42.50)

33.1 Less than $30.00 per week 10.8 % 33.2 $31 $50 per week 21.5 33.3 $51 $70 per week 22.6 33.4 $71 $90 per week 18.4 33.5 $91 or more per week 26.7

Describe your current or most recent job in terms of the following: (Mark yes or no for each line)

Yes No

34. A place to start a career 27.0 71.0% 35. More important to you than school 8.6 89.6 36. Something you do just for the money 75.0 23.6 37. Something you hate but feel you have to do 25.5 72.7 38. Something that gives you self-respect/status 54.6 44.1 39. A place to learn job skills you will need 54.3 43.8

How you do/did spend the money you make/made. (Mark one for each line)

(1) None (2) Some (3) Most

40. To support yourself 25.8% 54.3% 19.3%

41. To support my family 77.8 72.2 4.5

42. To buy things/go out/have fun with friends 7.2 43.1 48.4

43. For gas/car expenses 33.8 33.8 31.7

44. For further education 56.8 30.5 11.9

C H I L D LABOR T ASK FORCE 64 45. Is/was your current/most recent job part of a school-sponsored "work experience" program or any kind of program where your employer reports to your school? (Mark one)

45.1 Yes 14.4% 45.2 No 83.7

46. Who is the main source of your financial support? (Mark one)

46.1 I support myself 10.7% 46.2 One or both my parents 84.1 46.3 Relatives (not parents) 2.6 46.4 My husband/wife or partner 1.6 46.5 Government assistance 1.5

47. If you are not currently working or have never been employed, why is this? (Mark all that apply: leave blank if currently working.)

47.1 I need the time to study 29.5 % 47.2 I need the time to help my family at home 16.2 47.3 My parent(s) won't let me work 16.9 47.4 I would rather spend the time in sports/other school activities 33.1 47.5 All the places with available jobs want me to work too many hours 4.3

48. All the places with available jobs want me to work too late at night (INVALID)

How often have your parents done the following? (Mark one on each line)

(1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes(4) Often

49. Check on whether you've done homework 22.7% 28.2% 27.8% 20.8%

50. Rewarded you for good/ improved grades 22.5 25.4 30.4 20.9 .

51.Limited the amount of time you can watch TV/ spend time with friends 49.9 26.7 15.9 7.3

52. Limited privileges because of poor grades 44.7 23.8 19.9 11.3

5 C H I L D L A B O R T A S K FORCE 6 R E P CD

Would your parent(s)/guardian take steps to prevent you from working if they believed it seri- ously affected one of the following? (Mark yes or no for each line)

(1) Yes (2) No

53. Your grades 83.8% 14.1% 54. Your health 86.1 10.9

Do you agree with the following statements about why you go to school? (Mark one on each line)

(1) Strongly (4) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree(3) Agree Agree

55.I like some of my classes 5.0% 7.6% 62.3% 24.1% 56.I have no choice 17.7 33.4 30.1 18.4 57.Education is important for getting a job later on 3.4 2.7 22.7 70.0 58.I'm committed to a career that requires further education 5.7 16.9 30.3 46.0 59.I have nothing better to do 33.1 39.4 20.9 6.1 60.I go for the activities and to be with friends 9.3 21.1 50.1 18.3

C H I L D L A B O R T A SK FORCE 6 6 R E P C)

How important is each of the following to you in your life? (Mark one on each line)

(1) Not at All(2) Somewhat (3) Very Important Important Important

61. Being successful in my line of work 3.7% 17.9% 77.1% 62. Finding the right person to marry and having a happy family life 6.9 19.0 72.7 63. Having lots of money 9.5 49.9 39.2 64. Having strong friendships 3.1 15.6 79.7 65. Being able to find steady work 3.1 17.3 78.0 66. Helping other people in my community 11.6 56.3 30.6 67. Being able to give my children better opportunities than I have had 6.4 24.1 67.8 68.Living close to parents and relatives 29.4 52.7 16.7 69.Getting away from this area of the country 50.1 31.6 16.8 70. Working to correct social and economic problems 22.9 54.2 20.9 71. Having children 18.7 37.7 42.0 72. Having leisure time to enjoy my own interests 3.1 24.8 71.0

73.Getting away from my parents 35.1 41.6 21.7

74. As things stand now, which of the following seems most likely to happen? (Mark one: leave blank if you selected 74.6)

74.1 I will probably not finish high school 2.6 % 74.2 I will finish high school but won't go for further education 11.3 74.3 I will attend a junior college 24.2 74.4 I will go to a vocational or trade school 14.0 74.5 I will get a 4-year college degree 37.0 74.6 I will get a Master's degree or equivalent 10.9

CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 67 75. How old are you? (Mark one)

a.14 or younger 1.4 % b.15 3.3 c.16 26.0 d.17 47.0 e.18 or older 22.4

76. What is your sex? (Mark one)

a.Male 49.4 % b.Female 48.6

77. Which of the following do you feel best describes your race or ethnic background?

a.Hispanic 3.9 % b.American Indian or Alaskan Native 6.2 c.Black/Afro-American 3.5 d.Asian/Pacific Islander (e.g., Vietnamese, Indian, Polynesian) 6.5 e.White (e.g., Arabic, European) 79.9

78. Which of the following best describes your living arrangement?

a.I live on my own 3.3 % b.I live with my wife/husband 2.6 c.I live with a friend/friends 3.7 d.I live with both my parents 43.3 e.I live with my mother 9.6

79. With whom do you primarily live?

a.I live with my father 4.4 % b.I live with one parent and a step-parent 10.7 c.I live with family/relatives other than my parents 19.6 d.I live in a foster home or some kind of "shelter" situation 2.5

80. The yearly income of my family is: (Mark one)

a.$12,000 per year or less 13.0 % b.$12,000 to $20,000 per year 26.4 c.More than $20,000 per year 58.1

C H I L D L A B O R T A S K FORCE 6 8 R E P 0 R T

81. How many brothers and sisters currently live with your family?

a.None 29.1 % b. One 37.5 c.Two 17.7 d.Three 7.7 e.Four or more 7.9

82. Mark the choice below that indicates the most schooling received by either of your parents.

a.Did not graduate from high school 7.3 % b.High school graduate 24.2 c.Graduated from junior college or trade/ vocational school 14.2 d.Attended but did not graduate from two- or four-year college 15.2 e.Graduated from four-year college 39.1

74 CHILD LA B OR TASK FORCE 69 BUREAUP U B I_I C OFA 1' LABORICo NI S ANT)CoRIDER INDUSTRIES FCORM

ORDER INFORMATION

Quantity Cost

Child Labor Task Force Report $18 each prepaid

Wage and Hour Law Handbook $8 each prepaid

Civil Rights Law Handbook $8 each prepaid

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING

Name Title

Institution

Address

City/State Zip

Telephone

Please make check or purchase order payable to: Bureau of Labor and Industries

Send orders to: Technical Assistance Bureau of Labor and Industries P.O. Box 800 Portland, OR 97207-0800

All orders must be prepaid by check or accompanied by a purchase order. Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. No refunds for overstock.

75 CHILD LABOR TASK FORCE 70 U.S.Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) ERIC Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Titled t<140t,-vyoura. (246-&-i TS tqq woits igq (0, .14/1 P14PA04r or /-4-60rt- S /C an,&e--ke7Pore.r- Author(s): Corporate Source:-0 #,,tt,A.1, OF LArt506_ g ot,tc Publication Date:

H. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign at the bottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2 documents 111 [2( PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPER HAS BEEN GRANTED BY is COPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Check here Check here For Level 1 Release: For Level 2 Release: Permitting reproduction in Permitting reproduction in microfiche (4' x 6' film) or microfiche (4' x 6' film) or other ERIC archival media TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES other ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic or optical) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) (e.g., electronic or optical), and paper copy. but not in paper copy.

Level 1 Level 2

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.'

Sign Printed Name/Position/Title: here-4 JO/- rki 5 .re ii - (--evi/ env please p1,1 6 it-/ N]/)-r-t/1/ 0, L. c, p7-4- tion/Address: Terephone: 661. Ke-it,tA 011-41aal, 6(/14 50 3 13 ii211 So3 ?Si ,-/-/03 620 xi tr-,6AL 7_ E-Mail Address: Date: q 2-3 2_ P411-Cex---)o g._ .-7-/q(0

(over)